- Thames Cable Car (Complete)
- Silvertown Tunnel (Proposed) (A)
- Second ferry service at Gallions Reach (Proposed) (B)
- Thames Gateway Bridge (Cancelled but could arise again due to popular demand) where the proposed new ferry crossing is located (B)

Greater London

- New Dartford Thames Crossing (Proposed). Three options available: Option A to build a new bridge next to the existing Dartford bridge and remove the tunnels currently part of the Dartford crossing. Option B connecting the A2 near Dartford (south) to the A1089 road, north of Tilbury Docks. Option C connecting the M2 motorway and M20 motorways in the south with the M25.

Why build a bridge and remove the tunnels? makes no sense, surely 2 in either direction has to be a better option

to be honest they dont need another crossing there, they just need to get rid of the Toll Booths, they're the real bottleneck

__________________
"The public suddenly saw him in a new light, the two-handed fighter who stormed forward, a flame of pure fire in the ring, strong, native, affable, easy of speech, close to the people in word and deed and feeling."

Why build a bridge and remove the tunnels? makes no sense, surely 2 in either direction has to be a better option

to be honest they dont need another crossing there, they just need to get rid of the Toll Booths, they're the real bottleneck

They must mean remove the tunnels from the motorway network, a new four lane bridge for the M25, while the tunnels remain for local traffic.

I suspect that option A will happen as it is the cheapest and the easiest to get through planning.

They should also build option C as well or instead of A, as it would relieve the M2 and A13 and the M25 between those points as well as providing better links to both Tilbury and the new container port.

I guess it's too out the way? I live in Essex and I always go to Europe and I would have though option C was good as an alternative for people on the M25 clockwise who want to go to Kent or Europe while the Tilbury crossing could instead just be for people going Surrey or Sussex or whatever?

I know he killed a couple of other schemes due to being unfunded, but it sounded like he had other objections to this one.

The Dartford Tunnels will surely need to be kept. They are a useful backup when winds close the QE Bridge. I'm surprised with the technology available to us today that toll booths are still in use on the Dartford Crossing. Surely, something like ANPR could be used to allow free flowing.

I think there is more to it than that, he’s never really backed it, certainly as a bridge. There were moans about the design and size iirc and no doubt Tory strong holds in Outer SE London were chomping in his ear.

Bexley Council and their dodgy ex leader didn't want it and Boris relied on them for votes. He then made Bexley's leader his deputy mayor before he was caught out for fraud. Eventually convicted and given suspended sentence. Here's another story about him http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...inese-spy.html

Bexley Council are happy to leave Thamesmead to rot as a bit of a dump with hardly any amenities, facilities or transport. A bridge would open it up a hell of a lot. A ferry is a crap alternative.

They could stagger demand with tolls, and there's a decent amount of dual carriageway all the way along the river to the site that is hardly at peak capacity, designed as it was for a crossing going all the way back to the 60s. Stick a branch of DLR on it, or an express bus and Thamesmead and outer SE London would have much better connections to east London.

How much are they costing the tax payer? I'm sure it was nowhere near as much as the bridge which was quoted as being £100 million +

Wasn’t the bus was £3.2ish million with RnD and for the first 6 prototypes? Whole different scale in terms of project size.

A Thames Gateway bridge would cost hundreds of millions but was planned to be tolled, so would have a regular income and would pay for itself in time. Plus in this economic environment with construction down 10% in the last year and the sector in dire straights this would employ thousands and aid the economy of SE and E London massively.

The Thames gateway bridge was more like £500m. So quite a lot, but not really when you spread that over 5 years for an organisation which handles billions. Mindless comparison - We could have had 32 such bridges for the price of Crossrail.

The reason it didn't go ahead is complex.
1.Political (votes).
2.It was a very easy way to save a bit of money and call it ruthless efficiency savings. And
3.Practically where it went in the South was unresolved. It needs further investment to support it, such as a tunnel to the South Circular. But hang on this just highlights the problems of the South Circular which couldn't cope so doh, let's just abandon it.

I'd like to see several pedestrian bridges too. The one at Rotherhythe only affects a few developers as is, not thousands of individual property owners.

I look at it this way, when has anyone ever suggested taking down one of London's existing bridges because it was superfluous? Never. The problem needs an holistic approach though due to The complexities of juristiction and funding. There is no money at the moment so I'd like to see several built with very long term bonds with a holiding company owning the bridges which TfL or the highways agency then rent access from. Messy, but I can't see where the money will come from otherwise.

I prefer Tfl owning and managing all of London's road bridges (instead of boroughs) rather setting up a holding company, with the Mayor/Tfl able to issue infrastructure bonds for new ones (20-25 years). Tolls would pay for the vast bulk of the repayment, but the pot but Tfl could use other parts of its revenue to cover a slice, such as the cash given to smaller projects. This would require changes to both how much (the debt celling) and what types of borrowing Tfl can get.